Barring an absolute, point-blank refusal to run for president, Hillary Clinton is currently the big name for 2016. But when it comes to promising women, the Democratic Party currently boasts an embarrassment of riches. So here's a question: Is a two-woman ticket even feasible?

Advertisement

The New York Times points out that there are several women among the Democrats who qualify for a VP spot, or even their own run for president. There's Senator Elizabeth Warren (even though she says she isn't running), Minnesota's Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator Kristen Gillibrand, and New Hampshire's Maggie Hassan.

But in these early days, Hillary (who hasn't even officially announced a run) is considered the top name. None of the others is as well known. And that has people wondering about how this plays out, and whether America even cope with a two-woman presidential ticket without the entire nation dissolve into Reddity howls of rage.

Advertisement

Diane Feinstein, for instance, seems skeptical: "It's certainly possible to have two women," she told the Times, but added that, "I am not sure it's wise. You want a ticket that represents men and women." But women have made big-time gains in politics in the last decade, and it sounds like the idea is percolating:

"I don't think anyone should dismiss that idea," said Bill Carrick, a Democratic campaign consultant in Los Angeles. "It's just like with Clinton and Gore, when people said, 'You can't have two progressive Southern young candidates.' You can't until you do it. A great ticket that is powerful and historically important is awfully strong."

"Why can't we have two women? The only people who would rebel against that wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton anyway," he added. It's certainly pretty to think so. But then again, we live in a world where super serious political commentators—not Rush!—muse out loud how Hillary's becoming a grandmother might influence her political ambitions.